Not likely according to this (thanks to Craig Newmark for link).
While you may now have confidence in getting good value for housing in Albuquerque, this will not help.

Is it any wonder that NM’s economy grows more slowly than other states’ economies? NM cannot control spending and taxing.

New Mexico has its own version (subscription) of the Folk Song Army. Here is a sample of the hyperbole (good intentions notwithstanding) of the misguided rationale of redistribution:
“As long as the majority of our state’s children are living in or very near to poverty— without the basics they need today, and the hope of a better tomorrow— we will certainly be advocating for increased spending on education, health care, child care assistance and other essentials before tax cuts that benefit only upper-income earners. We believe in accountability to our children, as well as fiscal responsibility and sound policy making.”
As Arnold Kling points out:
“In short, the Folk Song Army believes that redistribution will cure poverty. The squares believe that market institutions will cure poverty. Most of the emotion seems to be on the side of the Folk Song Army. Most of the evidence seems to be on the side of the squares.”
I am one of those squares who are convinced that market institutions will cure poverty.

With thanks to the Bluegrass Institute:
The Founders’ Cornerstones
In this modern age, when we commemorate the 229th birthday of these United States, we may recite the rightness of our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Less often, though, do we ponder how the Founders of our nation came to this understanding of legitimacy in government.
The magnificent document from which the above passage is taken defines the basis of our Republic, but whence arose the ideas that impelled the Founders to set our nation off on the path of separation from rule by the kings of England? These precepts are a distillation of the free English laws in which the American colonists were schooled before setting foot on this land, where the colonial Americans became steeped in the experience of life in conditions of freedom.
Thus, the cornerstones on which the Founders built our new country were religious liberty, sanctity of personal property, practical exercise of freedom in daily living, and necessity of self-government. These were laid deeply in the manners and principles by which the earliest American colonial settlers made their way in the New World, during the century before the Founders concluded that we must embark on a course of nationhood.
In the Declaration, our Founders criticized King George III, saying, “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Could this charge not as readily apply to U.S. judges striking down laws people believe to be just as essential today?
Our Founders continued criticizing the King, noting, “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.” Although more subtle and insidious, our courts today have “repeatedly dissolved” the actions of our “Representative Houses” in “opposing with manly firmness” the judiciary’s “invasions on the rights of the people.”
Hence, the colonists felt the profound injustice of the British king’s deviation from adherence to the laws underpinning his reign, which led to the break in 1776. As the Founders noted, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”
Reading these charges today, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s assault in recent weeks on the U.S. Constitution — the document that implements the Declaration’s principles in practical government — we should wonder, are we indeed the heirs of our Founding generation? Two indictments are suspiciously aligned with allegations we could, and perhaps should, lay against our U.S. courts.
Consider this charge: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” Could this not as easily describe the Supreme Court’s decision permitting governments to take the private property of one citizen and bestow it on another who is expected to pay more taxes?
Add this: “For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments….” This past week’s Supreme Court decisions in regard to Kentucky and Texas governments, acting under their state charters to acknowledge God and the Ten Commandments, could be argued to have abolished their “most valuable laws” and “fundamentally altered the forms of those governments.”
Are these parallels remarkable? Or does growing tyranny present the same face wherever it appears?
Founder John Adams made an eloquent case for both private property ownership and public religious observance:
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
We would do well this Independence Day 2005 to ponder them, and to pray that we ourselves will have the courage of purpose and strength of character to put back aright those cornerstones so carefully laid by our Founding Fathers.
– Reprinted in this abridged form courtesy of The Federalist Patriot, free by e-mail at http://FederalistPatriot.US

At least she dissented in the Kelo and Medical Marijuana decisions.
But other than that she seems to have forgotten that she took an oath to uphold the constitution. Here is Chuck Muth on some of her swing votes:
“Well, there was that 5-4 affirmative action decision in which “The O.C.” was the swing vote. That’s the one which said some racial discrimination in college admissions is OK, while other racial discrimination isn’t. And that certain racial discrimination policies are OK today, but might not be OK 20 years from today. Reflect on that one.
And then there was the 5-4 decision in which “The O.C.” was the swing vote upholding the blatantly unconstitutional McCain-Feingold law which bans political advertisements by most Americans (but not the liberal editorial pages of the Washington Post or the New York Times) which are critical of candidates in the final 30 days of an election. Yeah, that’s something to reflect on.
We should also reflect on “The O.C.’s” embrace of the practice of using international law and court opinions as the basis for Supreme Court decisions, rather than that silly, old, antiquated, outdated U.S. Constitution thingy.
And then there was O’Connor’s swing vote which overturned a ban on one of the most grisly surgical procedures ever devised by man: partial-birth abortions. Even most pro-choicers find this procedure to be a bridge too far. But not “The O.C.” Sucking out the brains of an infant and killing it inches away from delivery. That’s certainly something to reflect on.”
By the way, if you do not already subscribe to Muth’s newsletters, you should.

This via Professor Frasca at Division of Labour:
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter’s home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called “The Lost Liberty Hotel” will feature the “Just Desserts Café” and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon’s Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”

This sort of ruling gets my constitutionalist-blood boiling.
As Harry recently noted, its nice to have a doubting Thomas.
His dissent showed crystal clear economic insight with regard to subjective value and consumer surplus:
“So-called ’urban renewal’ programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted.”
I hope good people running for local office in New Mexico are paying attention to this. Let’s not let this happen here!

Pete DuPont makes the absurd claim that Bill Richardson has exercised spending discipline:
“Colorado’s Bill Owens supported (though he is wavering a bit) the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or Tabor, a constitutional provision restricting the growth of state spending to the growth in population plus inflation and mandating the return of any revenue surplus to the taxpayer, making Colorado a top personal income growth state in the country for a decade. New Mexico’s Bill Richardson has followed the same successful path, holding state spending to Tabor levels even though there is no requirement that he do so, and reducing income and capital gains taxes.”
Here is my response:
DuPont needs to get his facts straight about Bill Richardson. Richardson is on a spending binge. In current dollars Richardson is on pace to have increased New Mexico’s general fund budget by $400 million above inflation plus population growth by the end of his term. That constitutes an increase of 9.5% ABOVE a TABOR limit. He has squandered the opportunity for significant tax reductions inherited from Gary Johnson’s 8 years of budget discipline.
CATO and Forbes had their facts wrong about Richardson’s tax record. Now DuPont can’t get it right about spending. Why all of this disinformation about New Mexico?

Never content to derail a bad idea, New Mexico is poised to become the next rail disaster. Unless New Mexico learns to decouple from this kind of runaway spending, its economy will remain at half throttle.

Did you see this editorial in Friday’s Wall Steet Journal? Excerpts:
“It hasn’t yet hit the intensity level of Howard Jarvis’s Proposition 13, the famous ballot measure that slashed California property taxes by 30% and sparked a nationwide tax revolt in the late 1970s. But activists in at least 20 states — from Alaska to South Carolina — are working to enact Taxpayer Bill of Rights (Tabor) laws to cap runaway state spending and tax increases.”
“Last week in Richmond, Virginia, taxpayer groups from 30 states gathered under the banner of the State Policy Network to discuss how to insert these anti-tax restrictions into state constitutions.”
The Rio Grande Foundation is taking part in this revolt. Stay tuned this summer as we further our documentation of runaway state spending in New Mexico.

In today’s report from Chuck Muth:
YOUR FDA AT WORK
According to the latest “Give Me a Break” commentary by ABC’s John Stossel, the chemical Mexoryl effectively blocks UVA the rays from the sun which cause wrinkles. Dermatologists swear by it. And sun worshippers in Rio, Paris, Mexico, Canada and Australia have been lathering up with it for over a dozen years now.
But don’t look for it on the shelves of your local drug store here in the U.S. of A. It ain’t there. Why? Because it’s illegal here. You see, the federal Food & Drug Administration (FDA) still hasn’t “approved” Mexoryl as safe and effective.
How typically “governmental” to be told over and over and over that the sun is dangerous and not to forget to wear sunscreen…while the feds continue to ban the most effective sunscreen on the market today.
And this is the same group some want to turn the regulation of tobacco over to? Give me a break.

A bad idea filled with feel-good rhetoric has been exposed. So called “smart” growth policies are not working out after all. Unfortunately, Albuquerque has not yet caught on.

New Mexico now has a law requiring ignition interlocks on the cars of convicted drunk drivers. (An interlock is a device that uses a breathalizer to estimate the driver’s blood alcohol content and then shuts down the ignition if the driver flunks the test.)
These devices cost more than $500–not cheap. So here’s my prediction: Within the next 18 months a bill will be introduced in the state legislature to pay for interlocks for drunks who “can’t afford them.”
Does this sound absurd? Yes, but not unlikely.

Two weeks ago Winthrop Quigley (subscription) gave us a pessimistic report on the status of Health Savings Accounts in New Mexico. An excerpt:
“Tax-advantaged savings accounts designed to restrain health-care spending have been slow to take off and haven’t made much of a dent in the number of uninsured workers, according to insurance industry research.”
But a report today from Michael Barone is much more promising. Health care costs may actually be slowing their rate of growth. According to Barone “…the evidence is that health care costs are being held down, by the workings of the marketplace, partly in response to health care legislation passed in the last four years.”
New Mexico is not likely to benefit, however. Our tax treatment discourages these accounts. And our vast array of Medicaid recipients do not need the accounts, since someone else pays for their health care.

So called “school reform” New Mexico style is not going to work because the incentives are all wrong. Look here for one assessment of the results so far. Last again.

Does ignorance of basic economics ever do any good? Maybe so.
When New Mexico repealed its gross receipts tax on groceries, it raised the tax on nearly every other good and service. It attempted to calculate this rate increase to exactly offset the revenue loss from grocery tax relief.
However, the state’s “economists” failed to allow for consumers’ negative responses to higher taxes. Supply side economics in reverse, as it were. With a nearly one percent increase in the cost of most goods, people bought less, or increasingly shopped out of state. The result was that net revenue losses were ten pecent more than expected.
Of course, any tax cut—even if by accident—is a good idea. Sadly, this was merely a reduction in a tax hike, but it was better than nothing. Truly, an “error of enchantment.”

Fooled you! Brown is Black.

Too bad we don’t have more doubting Thomases on the Supreme Court. Here is a portion of Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent:
“Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”
The Commerce Clause has enabled activist judges to make up the rules as we go along. So much for the Constitution.
See more thoughtful discussion here.

From NCPA:
Ethanol’s advocates have long argued that increasing the amount used in
gasoline would be a boon to the economy, reduce our dependence on
foreign oil and improve air quality.
Yet, more than two decades and tens of billions of dollars in subsidies,
tax credits and fuel mandates have done little other than enrich the
agribusinesses that produce ethanol, says H. Sterling Burnett, a senior
fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.
Indeed, the economic impact of ethanol subsidies is negative. One report
by the U.S. Agriculture department determined that every $1 spent
subsidizing ethanol costs consumers more than $4.
There are several reasons for this, says Burnett:
o Every bushel of corn devoted to ethanol production leaves less
for human consumption and animal feed — thus people pay more for
corn, beef, poultry and pork than they would absent the
subsidies.
o And prices for other goods are also higher since farmers, in
pursuit of lucrative subsidies, devote more acreage to corn
rather than other, unsubsidized, produce.
o Additionally, the costs of growing, distilling and blending
ethanol into gasoline makes it cost 51 cents more per gallon to
produce than regular gasoline.
The clamor for increased use of ethanol also raises the specter of the
current problems surrounding the use of MTBE, the fuel additive that oil
producers began blending with gasoline in the mid-1990s to meet stricter
clean-air standards. Although not carcinogenic in humans, MTBE has
caused huge problems recently because it leaks from storage tanks and
contaminates local water supplies.
Absent federal subsidies and mandates, ethanol would likely disappear
from the marketplace. Like so much of the pork Congress bestows upon
special interests, ethanol is bad for the economy, consumers and the
environment, says Burnett.
Source: H. Sterling Burnett, “Ethanol benefits makers, legislators who
support their cause,” Billings Gazette, June 5, 2005.

Chuck Muth expresses my sentiments better than I ever could:
“For all its purported virtues, the Bush/Kennedy ‘No Child Left Behind’ law is perhaps the biggest threat to state sovereignty this side of the Rio Bravo today. The federal NCLB law tells states how they MUST run their re-education camps…er, public schools…or else.
Up ’til now that “or else” has been a threatened cut-off of federal funds to states who refuse to ‘get with the program.’ But now that Utah has gone on record as telling Uncle Sam to take his money and shove it, the feds are getting significantly more cranky. In fact, Nina Rees from the Education Department announced at a Cato Institute forum on Tuesday that, ‘We’re going to take a hard line against states that blatantly violate the law.’
So when the carrot doesn’t work, the feds are more than happy to whip out the ol’ stick to compel state compliance with the diktats of the omnipotent federal government. 10th Amendment supporters should be outraged. More states should follow Utah’s lead. Congress should repeal NCLB. And the federal Department of Education ought to be eliminated, just as Republicans proposed back in 1994…BEFORE they actually became the party of power.”

Proud to say that I was one of the graduate students who decided to cast my lot with GMU.

Councilor Martin Heinrich carefully follows the first lesson of politics:
“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
— Thomas Sowell

Bad news about use of your tax money: Nearly 800 convicted s*e*x offenders in 14 states got Medicaid-funded prescriptions for V*iagr*a and other impot*ence drug*s. But also a little good news: Maybe the perver*ts won’t be able to find their prey.

Walter Williams explains why you should not worry about the trade deficit.
I wish politicians were as economically literate as Professor Williams. But they are not:
“Some politicians gripe about all the U.S. debt held by foreigners. Only a politician can have that kind of audacity. Guess who’s creating the debt instruments that foreigners hold? If you said it’s our profligate Congress, go to the head of the class. If foreigners didn’t purchase so much of our debt, we’d be worse off in terms of higher inflation and interest rates.”